NRA- SanFranGunBan... Vote NO!!!


PDA






Ironbarr
October 8, 2005, 01:35 PM
Vote NO on Proposition H and Protect Your Right to Protect Yourself !

Proposition H seeks to prohibit law-abiding San Francisco residents from purchasing firearms—rifles, shotguns and handguns— for any lawful reason, whether it be for self-defense, hunting or recreational shooting. If Proposition H passes, current law-abiding gun owners would have to surrender their registered handguns to the police.

Handguns not turned in voluntarily will become contraband, to be found and collected by the police, law enforcement officers who will be diverted from their jobs of apprehending violent criminals.For full story check this new NRA web site: http://www.stopsanfranban.com/

Sounds more like Preparation H... anal ordinance.

If you enjoyed reading about "NRA- SanFranGunBan... Vote NO!!!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Jim March
October 8, 2005, 05:50 PM
At the national level this could actually work to our advantage. It'll help smear the Dems with the "radical grabber" label.

atek3
October 8, 2005, 05:54 PM
i'll be suprised if it passes. I think san franciscans are less crazy now than a generation ago... maybe i'm drawing on too small of a sample set.

atek3

KriegHund
October 8, 2005, 05:54 PM
Cripes- i didnt think even..no especially, politicians could be so bold about an outright BAN on guns.

Theyve worked behind the scenes for so many yeasr they think they can come out and say it, eh?

I dont understand why we arent either A) hanging these people or B) Exiling them to an island, for such blatant ingonorance of our rights.

bjbarron
October 8, 2005, 05:59 PM
At the national level this could actually work to our advantage. It'll help smear the Dems with the "radical grabber" label.

They don't see that as a smear...gun grabbing is a main plank in their platform of horror.

No, I think it is better to resist each and every attempt to limit gun rights...whether that attempt be national or local. We're on the offensive with CCW rights and have been winning for 15 years. No reason to stop now.

Standing Wolf
October 8, 2005, 09:05 PM
i'll be suprised if it passes. I think san franciscans are less crazy now than a generation ago... maybe i'm drawing on too small of a sample set.

I hope you're right; even if I were a wagering man, however, I wouldn't bet on it.

thorn726
October 8, 2005, 09:35 PM
we got a bunch of girls gettign ready to pass out flyers at some big street festivals and elsewhere.

this one girl came up with a truly awesome quote =
of course i think the final version may be revised some-
"hey I am a flaming liberal schoolteacher and a gun owner, who lives alone in Hunter's Point. I resent that a bunch of rich white people who live in secure apartment buildings like Gavin Newsom get to have a gun and I get to live in fear because I won't be able to defend myself if someone breaks into my apartment. "

Zundfolge
October 9, 2005, 01:37 AM
Proposition H? In San Francisco?

My GOD where is Jay Leno when we need him? :neener:

MountainPeak
October 9, 2005, 03:32 AM
The "UGLY' little secret is, the law abiding people in S.F. and Oakland have LOTS of guns. They have been beaten into submission. They dare not admit it. Even to friends.

Kjervin
October 9, 2005, 03:58 AM
I hope this fails. I would not see the residents of even 1 county sacrificed for political gain. It saddens me that they would even try this. I will be doubly sad if they succeed. I am rooting for you guys in San Fran, I hope you can stand up to them.

:fire: :fire:
kj

Don't Tread On Me
October 9, 2005, 04:22 AM
SanFran = lost cause.


NRA shouldn't waste a penny there.


Instead, we will gain a west coast example of the failure of gun control (D.C. is our Eastern example).

KriegHund
October 10, 2005, 04:38 PM
We cannot afford many examples.

dpesec
October 10, 2005, 05:38 PM
Right, just like in a war, you when the enemy starts to get a foothold, you need to crush it ASAP. You can't let them get a foothold.
Yes SF is almost a lost cause, but we need to make sure that the measure goes down in flames

Carl N. Brown
October 10, 2005, 05:52 PM
Chicago is the Midwest example.
Mayor Daley's great accomplishment is to ban handguns for the
law abiding.
U. of Chicago Criminologist Frank Zimring admitted years ago that
gun control that disarmed the law abiding and left criminals armed
could have the net result of raising the crime rate.
Chicago by disarming the law abiding and leaving criminals armed
suffers a really bad crime rate.
Mayor Daley's answer is to sue the gun industry for selling guns
where they are still legal.
When local option prohibition fails, that just proves we need a
national prohibition law to make it work? Of all places, Chicago
should know how that did not work with alcohol.

D.C. and Chicago are bad enuff. We don't need to let S.F. go down.

LAR-15
October 10, 2005, 06:57 PM
Handguns are used by US troops.

Your screwed in San Fran. :(

50 Freak
October 10, 2005, 07:02 PM
The "UGLY' little secret is, the law abiding people in S.F. and Oakland have LOTS of guns. They have been beaten into submission. They dare not admit it. Even to friends.

Ain't that the truth, for those of us that live out here. It's easier to admit your a closet male lesbian than it is to admit your a gun owner.

But here is something that happened just an hour ago. I work in a top tier law firm in the Silicon Valley. One of the young hottie lawyers just was talking to her co-worker how she had fun this weekend skeet shooting. And last week another co-worker of mine was talking about how she was trying to choose between a Glock or HK USP. At the old firm I worked at the named partner had a hunting room that displayed over $500,000 worth of firearms. He was a big time Safari hunter.

Times are changing in Cali. We are even starting to see pro 2nd amendment articles written in the local newpapers.

Now if the damn politicians would get their heads out of their rectums and see the change. :cuss: :cuss:

I'd like to think all the damn stupid gun laws are finally starting to have an effect. People here don't like them and are starting to speak up. This state would be fantastic without all the damn tree huggers politics.

But I think with the population ageing and the 60s and 70s flower childs are finally getting off of the pot and slowly seeing the picture. Especially in light of seeing what happened in NO.

Basura Blanca
October 10, 2005, 07:13 PM
For those that keep chiming in with the "lost cause" mantra, I excerpted the following to illustrate a point:

Why California Endangers Your Rights

"People seem to think that what happens in California doesn't affect them, or that they can just wall off California and not worry about what happens here," [Chuck] Michel said, "but what people need to understand is that California is the source of a lot of the anti-gun strategies we see all over the country.

---

[Wayne] LaPierre agreed: "For decades, California has been the staging ground, or test case, for anti-gun activists. Over and over again, we've seen anti-gun proposals go straight from Sacramento to the halls of the U.S. Congress. So we're going to fight this latest anti-gun gambit--not just for the sake of California's gun owners, but for the Second Amendment freedoms of every American."

LAR-15
October 10, 2005, 07:20 PM
Sorry but CA is a lost cause.

Basura Blanca
October 10, 2005, 07:22 PM
More from the stopsanfranban.com site:

Taxpayers to pay for costly legal battle: Prop. H sponsors have not done their homework. A long-standing California preemption statute prohibits cities from passing a patchwork of conflicting gun laws. If Prop. H does pass, taxpayers will have to pay for a costly lawsuit that San Francisco may very well lose, as it has done in the past.

Local preemption is -or should be, imo- the pivotal point regarding this initiative.

Issue aside (forget the guns for a second), realize that this proposition could set a precedent that would have extremely far reaching effects in the Golden State.
If a locality is allowed to impose a law that contradicts the state constitution, the damage potential is quite possibly limitless.

This has been the angle I've been using to garner opposition to prop. H from those outside of the "gun nut" community. For me, it's an approach that many that would otherwise be unfriendly to the cause will at least listen to and understand.

Forget the crime stats., the RKBA rants, etc. -that stuff doesn't go very far. If you want people to listen, then the issue is the harmful nature of local preemption of state laws.
JMO.

odysseus
October 10, 2005, 07:40 PM
Lar-15

Sorry but CA is a lost cause.

This is obvious debate "bait", but basically to simply answer - that is simply wrong. You must not have ever traveled around the state. Despite what the media may make it seem, San Francisco does not represent the people of Cali. SF and some cities like Berkeley are bastions for leftists, but the state outside of those areas is largely centrist - if not traditionally conservative - and are home to tens upon tens of thousands of gun owners. However Californians are voting badly (if voting at all) and gerrymandering democrats have "won" the show.

I think State Senators like Tom McClintock might argue your assumption to you.

So what is it you were saying again?

Amusetec
October 10, 2005, 08:01 PM
odysseus Lar-15

Quote:
Sorry but CA is a lost cause.


This is obvious debate "bait", but basically to simply answer - that is simply wrong. You must not have ever traveled around the state. Despite what the media may make it seem, San Francisco does not represent the people of Cali. SF and some cities like Berkeley are bastions for leftists, but the state outside of those areas is largely centrist - if not traditionally conservative - and are home to tens upon tens of thousands of gun owners. However Californians are voting badly (if voting at all) and gerrymandering democrats have "won" the show.

I think State Senators like Tom McClintock might argue your assumption to you.

So what is it you were saying again?

Ok Then how come CA always pass these stupid leftest law. Becuse most of the people of CA are Leftest. Or most of the people are lazy which is it?
either way CA IS LOST AND THEY ARE BRINGING IT EAST.
Talk ot AZ or NV residents they will tell you quick that leftest CA is bring it with them they screwed up CA so bad that they have to leave CA and go to Las Vegas and screw it up by bringing there silly laws with them THey think if they do the same thing there it will cause a different outcome.( I lived I LV NV 5 years ago for awhile 5 years ago they where going to come out with a new lic. plate but they would still make the old blue one for people that still have them becuse that pretty much tells you who is a Native NV and not people who are old time NV they hate CA people. They are alot like Texans they will let you know quick that they are native and there parents are native.
I hear that AZ is about the same way now.


So I guess we all need to worry about what happens there becuse WHAT HAPPENS IN CA DOES NOT STAY IN CA. :D
Even here in Houston we watch what is going on there becuse eventualy it will come here to always does.

And here is a Question
How does being default on a student loan make you untrustworthy to have a CHL?

odysseus
October 10, 2005, 08:11 PM
Amusetec - I actually agree with a lot of what you say (I have seen it in AZ) except for the all is "lost" parts; but let's not also forget this thread is about a very controversial law trying to pass in the CITY of San Fran - not the State of Cali. I think what lar-15 said is a generalization that is not accurate.

I doubt it will pass. However it is damn close, it is an outrage, and it is another grandstanding move by the leftist there to socialize people and oppress their human rights to defend themselves.

Pietro Beretta
October 10, 2005, 08:20 PM
WHAT HAPPENS IN CA DOES NOT STAY IN CA.

So if you "give up" here, then you leave the rest of the nation to be screwd up.

Everyone of my "friends" owns a firearm of some sort thats about 16 people I really know . Out of those people I only can think of 2 who voted last election, (including me). I really dont think the 18-25 generations cares about voting, why I dont know but that freakin mentailty needs to change.

You got all the lefties voting, because they crazy left wing democrats, they want their leftie laws passed.

Everyone else doesnt vote because, oh the last time I voted it didnt matter, who cares this time we cant change anything.-This type of mentality needs to change. Theirs too much weed still in this state, everyones freakin lazy

bigun15
October 10, 2005, 08:44 PM
Here's what I think, for what it's worth.

1)Don't put all Californians in one category. There is such a thing as a non-liberal/leftist/whatever Californian.

2)If you give up here, the anti's will move somewhere else and work until you give up there too, and keep doing it.

3)I doubt it will be passed. New legislation, voting, whatever it all has one thing in common:It is the EXACT opposite of what the Constitution, the supreme law of the land, says.

Amusetec
October 10, 2005, 08:46 PM
Pietro Beretta-
I agree with you that most people are lazy when it comes to voting, it is rampant here in Houston. Everyone complains about how bad the schools are but less than 8% vote in the election. why do you think most School Dist. hold bond and board elections at off times they only whant the admins teachers and there like to vote and pass there agenda then the other 92% compalin and moan about the sorry schools. Same on the Local election.
When I hear someone complaining about politics my first question is did you vote if they say no I tell them they have no right to complain becuse you are part of the problem.

Term Limits- easy do away with the congressional pension and lower the pay
lobbiest ineffective- easy 90% voter turn out and always tell rep your views. If 60% of voters tell a rep if you vote for this bill I will vote you out, and if a lobbiest comes in and says I will give you money for your campaing if you vote for this bill, which side do you think he is going to take? If he votes for it he loses election but has a nice campaing donation but if he votes against it he gets reelected to me it is a no brainer.
For it to work everyone needs to vote (early and often) and be active in government.
Yea I know I do not have time I am too busy ok then do not complain about what you get. This is a rep. Republic so you better get your Rep. In office or you are screwed.


Wil Rogers said " Be thankful you do not get all the gov. you pay for." Well Wil we do now! :banghead:

SEE WHAT I MEAN

Basura Blanca
October 10, 2005, 09:07 PM
You got all the lefties voting, because they crazy left wing democrats, they want their leftie laws passed.


I'm not trying to single anyone out here, but even Californians themselves fall into the fallacy-laden mindset that makes them believe that "liberal leftists" = the embodiment of CA's RKBA problems.
In particular, as it pertains to the passage of firearms laws, this type of knee-jerk, reactionary, pseudo-thought is swiftly undermined when one examines the facts. IOW, it's not just the "lefty democrats" that are to blame.


Don't believe it? Look for yourself and put it to the test.

Use the drop down list titled "Choose a Session" here (http://capitolmuseum.ca.gov/english/legislature/history/index.html) to generate a list of previous state senate and assembly members and their respective party affiliation. Then, use this link here (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/bilinfo.html) to research the votes on specific pieces of legislation (ex.: SB23 of the 1999-2000 session or more recently AB50 of the '03-'04 session).

Here's a recent example:

SB48 (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=sb_48&sess=CUR&house=B&author=scott) (signed by a Republican Governor too) was an NRA "red" bill, meaning it was one to oppose.

***
Here's how the final votes went (I've selected the "anomalies" here. This isn't the entire roll call):

Senate.
Denise Ducheny-D (no)
Dean Florez-D (no)

State Assy.
John Benoit-R (aye)
Lynn Daucher-R (aye)
Bonnie Garcia-R (aye)
Shirley Horton-R (aye)
Roger Niello-R (aye)
Keith Richman-R (aye)
Todd Spitzer-R (aye)
Van Tran-R (aye)

Gloria Negrete McLeod-D (no)
Nicole Parra-D (no)
***

Let's see... of the members voting, eight Republicans in the state assembly voted for an anti-gun measure while two Democrats voted against it.
In the state senate, two Democrats voted against it too.


Is everything so black & white? No, not in the least. California politics (heck, politics in general) are not so simple and issues aren't drawn on an definitive partisan line. That's the reality that many fail to grasp.

Amusetec
October 10, 2005, 09:25 PM
Basura Blanca-
Just becuse someone has an R after there names does not mean the are conservitives that is what we call a RINO (Republican In Name Only).
That is part of the problem people think that you have a D after your name you are a lib or lefty and if you have an R after your name you are conservitave. Well that is not true I would call Zell Miller(D) a liberal.

We here in Texas have Lots of RINOs.

That is why I never vote Straight Ticket. I find out about who is running and try and find out where they stand.
Then I find out that they lied to and vote for the next liar. :barf: :banghead: :banghead:

NHBB
October 10, 2005, 09:28 PM
LOL @ zundfolge... you should submit that one yourself :D

Basura Blanca
October 11, 2005, 12:39 AM
Basura Blanca-
Just becuse someone has an R after there names does not mean the are conservitives that is what we call a RINO (Republican In Name Only).
That is part of the problem people think that you have a D after your name you are a lib or lefty and if you have an R after your name you are conservitave.

Well, I agree but I'll go one step further and say that "conservative" (even in the classical sense) does not equal "pro gun", just as "republican" does not equal "conservative". The converse holds true too (i.e. the oft overused "liberal leftist" stuff).
None of that is exactly earth-shattering news though.

The point I was trying to make was that in spite of the sentiments of some California residents, the idea that the state suffers where the RKBA is at question is not simply because of it's so-called "blue" status.
Politics aren't that simple.

The faulty thinking of many "gun nuts" here in the Golden State is that if they can turn this state more "red", they will start to win the RKBA battle and even better, begin to undo the damage that's been done. Looking at the history of the state's lawmaking on that matter, with special attention to party affiliation (as in my example above), I disagree completely.

The reality is that the "gun issue" (whatever that really means) is a bastard subject that few elected officials wish to take on in any sort of a proactive sense. If anything, it's an issue that does not know partisan lines either direction. Granted, it may be more magnified in a place like California, but it's the same general story in Texas, or Virginia or Utah or wherever.

As voters, gun owners are a marginalized class of people in the mind of the elected.

thorn726
October 11, 2005, 03:40 AM
written into the law= they know even if it passes, the handgun part will fail, but the "sales in city" part will be upheld, stopping privat parties form selling guns to each other legally, ammo, etc, i dont know is SF even has any gun stores anymore anyway?

as for the rest of the country- yeah, sure ignore us. not like anyone from Cali ever becomes president, his aide/ whatever gets shot, and the whole nation is affected. there are no people form Cali in the US congress, dont worry about it.

and yeah, Berkeley and Sf hardly represent CA as a whole on guns.
and even here there are lots of us "crazies", more than you think.

LAR-15
October 11, 2005, 12:20 PM
I will say it again: the radical gun banners control ********** and push there crap at will.

Name another state that would take Paul Koretz seriously?

Yes he is from Hollyweird but CA takes that man's gun control proposals and passes them- at least eventually (can we say 50 caliber rifles?)

Heck CA was going to pass his handgun serialization bill until the cops finally bitched loud enough that it would cost them too much money.

JJE
October 11, 2005, 05:42 PM
I lived in SF for 15 years until just recently and I expect that it will become less politically extreme. Why? Real estate prices have skyrocketed and the traditional voter base that has supported crackpot politicians in the past is being priced out of town. The people that can afford to live in SF (lawyers, finance execs, high-tech execs) are much less likely to support traditional SF politics than the people who used to live there.

How will the vote go? It would not surprise me if it passed, although it will be challenged in court on a number of issues (conflict with state law, seizure of private property without compensation). SF has a long history of losing in court, so ultimately I would be surprised if it goes into effect.

Basura Blanca
October 11, 2005, 09:29 PM
I will say it again: the radical gun banners control ********** and push there crap at will.

Well then, I'll say it again too: if you aren't including the "radical gun banner" Republicans, then you are acting disingenuously.

Name another state that would take Paul Koretz seriously?

...a totally straw argument.

Yes he is from Hollyweird but CA takes that man's gun control proposals and passes them- at least eventually (can we say 50 caliber rifles?)

It appears you didn't do the homework that I assigned above. Go look at party affiliation of those voting for and against AB50.
-and oh yeah... can we say, "signed by a so-called progun Republican governor" too???

Heck CA was going to pass his handgun serialization bill until the cops finally bitched loud enough that it would cost them too much money.

Not quite the story, but good enough to leave alone. ;)

Justang
October 14, 2005, 12:53 AM
Sorry but CA is a lost cause.

ignorant statement. :rolleyes:

bill2
October 14, 2005, 12:05 PM
Some things to remember: One, don't confuse Republican with conservative. Too many people do and come to regret it. Two, not all Democrats are against guns and not all Republicans are for them. And remember, in the 2004 presidential election, the eastern half of CA went for Bush by about 15%. the problem is that the bay area and the LA area went for Kerry, and they are the main population centers. If you look at a county map of CA, most of it is red, very little of it is blue.

Like many other things, including the media in regards to gun owners, people tend to generalize - it's much easier than really finding out about an issue and two it's sometimes satisfying to make a general statement about something that really irrritates you (such as all Californian's are gun hating liberals or something similar).

CA is not a lost cause, but it will take a lot of work. Do your homework - don't vote straight tickets, but instead find out about everyone you're voting for/against.

geekWithA.45
October 14, 2005, 12:09 PM
Unlike NJ, CA is NOT a lost cause.

Libs have a stranglehold on the legislature, but it's propped up by things like union dues being directed into Dem coffers.

http://www.smartvoter.org/2005/11/08/ca/state/prop/75/

A couple of strategic cracks like that into the dike can turn the tide.

{Holy mangled metaphor, batman!}

RavenVT100
October 14, 2005, 12:39 PM
B) Exiling them to an island, for such blatant ingonorance of our rights.

Hey, I know a good island for that. Quite near to San Fran, in fact. Of course, we'd have to re-open it.

Basura Blanca
October 14, 2005, 08:21 PM
Unlike NJ, CA is NOT a lost cause.

Libs have a stranglehold on the legislature, but it's propped up by things like union dues being directed into Dem coffers.

http://www.smartvoter.org/2005/11/08/ca/state/prop/75/

A couple of strategic cracks like that into the dike can turn the tide.

{Holy mangled metaphor, batman!}

For all the "gun nut" talk that laments the passage of harassment laws regarding firearms, I'm actually amazed that folks wouldn't be able to spot a union-harassment law when they see one.
Debating the finer points of prop. 75 is totally off-topic on this thread, but for all intents and purposes, it is exactly as I describe -that is, it's an issue of harassment aimed at a segment of the population.
...something about two wrongs not making a right comes to mind here.

That said, I don't support prop. 75 in any way. Further, I don't see how it's passage would ever help RKBA in the Golden State. As was pointed out before, being a Republican doesn't make one an automatic supporter of the RKBA, and conversely Democrats don't blindly "hate guns", etc., etc.
Thus, it follows that being a union member does not automatically make that individual a "liberal, left, gun-hating" segment of society either. Nor does the dubious claim that their universal support for Democratic candidates mean that they are the enemy of ours because of the mythical trickle down effect that is asserted.
As for union dues bolstering the coffers of the Dems., so what? (see above) Besides that, look at the money raised by the current Republican governor who claimed to be immune from the "special interests". As of today, $64 million dollars of whoring later, I'd say Arnold is up to his ears in "special interest" money himself.

Back on topic:
If Californians want to defeat "gun bans" like that which is slated for San Francisco, it will take a tactful approach at swaying public opinion to do so.
The members of the "rabid, liberal left" can smell counterfeit rhetoric a mile away, just as we gun owners can see through the thinly veiled lies that are passed off as objective premises in support of "gun bans". Too often, imo, our side underestimates the intelligence of the opposition.
In regards to the RKBA, the pursuit of swaying public opinion our direction can't be won by rah rah, chest-thumping rants that cite the 2nd Amendment as the foundational argument. Even the fence-sitters on the issue don't often buy into that simple logic. IOW, it may be cut and dry to us, but it'll take more than that to convince those outside of our circled wagons.
JMO, of course.

rick_reno
October 15, 2005, 02:53 AM
Proposition H? In San Francisco?

My GOD where is Jay Leno when we need him? :neener:

Wait until they run Proposition KY.

Seriously - how is this one polling?

LAR-15
October 15, 2005, 11:25 AM
Sorry but Arnold never has been pro gun.

I was not surprised he signed it.

And secondly radical gun banners have the ears of BOTH parties in **********.

You got a state that puts Don Perata in charge of the state senate.

How nice. :rolleyes:

Politicians in CA (and NJ, ect) cannot run for statewide office on a pro gun policy and win.

When was the last 'pro gun' bill passed by the ********** Assembly?

Creeping Incrementalism
October 15, 2005, 08:18 PM
Sorry but Arnold never has been pro gun.

I'm not disagreeing with you, but I believe he hasn't signed any anti-gun bills since. I think the negative reaction he got from AB50 was a wake-up call.

MountainPeak
October 23, 2005, 07:57 PM
Ain't that the truth, for those of us that live out here. It's easier to admit your a closet male lesbian than it is to admit your a gun owner.

But here is something that happened just an hour ago. I work in a top tier law firm in the Silicon Valley. One of the young hottie lawyers just was talking to her co-worker how she had fun this weekend skeet shooting. And last week another co-worker of mine was talking about how she was trying to choose between a Glock or HK USP. At the old firm I worked at the named partner had a hunting room that displayed over $500,000 worth of firearms. He was a big time Safari hunter.

Times are changing in Cali. We are even starting to see pro 2nd amendment articles written in the local newpapers.

Now if the damn politicians would get their heads out of their rectums and see the change. :cuss: :cuss:

I'd like to think all the damn stupid gun laws are finally starting to have an effect. People here don't like them and are starting to speak up. This state would be fantastic without all the damn tree huggers politics.

But I think with the population ageing and the 60s and 70s flower childs are finally getting off of the pot and slowly seeing the picture. Especially in light of seeing what happened in NO. I worked on the demolition/debris removal after the Oakland Hills Fire. I wish I had actually counted how many firearms were recovered(worthless, but recovered) during this effort. 3000 homes were burned up. Hundreds of firearms were recovered. Most of course, were trucked off, buried in debris and never found. There are a LOT of gun owners in the "Bay" area. They may not be vocal, but I truly believe they exist in higher numbers than most people think.

Kamicosmos
October 23, 2005, 09:09 PM
A long-standing California preemption statute prohibits cities from passing a patchwork of conflicting gun laws. If Prop. H does pass, taxpayers will have to pay for a costly lawsuit that San Francisco may very well lose, as it has done in the past.


This is something I don't understand, and it happens everywhere. Here we have the State saying to the cities: you can't make laws that contradict XX. Then, the cities do it anyways. Kansas actually just passed a state level law mandating a simplification of gun transport laws at the county and city level. There is already buzzes about how certain counties and cities are going to re-pass thier own bizarre entrapment style gun laws to get around the new state law. :confused:

Just like a bunch of rebellious teenagers or something!! (gawd, I sound like my dad...)

gunsmith
October 24, 2005, 12:22 AM
it might pass, I really don't know.
the good news is it will fail in court, absolutley because if SF is allowed to supercede State law the all the GUN FRIENDLY COUNTIES TO THE NORTH OF SAN FRANCISCO
Would be able to do the same and allow open carry, sales of guns not on the drop list, AR15 sales, hi cap mags, as many handguns you can buy not the one a month crap...tons of fun stuff could happen if SF passes this law and it sticks in court challenges.PLUS THIS OTHER FUN FACT!
The law (as written) doesn't make it illegal for CCW holders from other areas of CA to carry in SF! if you have a CA ccw and live elsewhere you're still ok to carry.
once the law passes and frico folks realize that ,then they will be quite upset, as they think it means no one is allowed to carry or own handguns...they don't realize it only affects them!!

Don't Tread On Me
October 24, 2005, 12:38 AM
To those that criticize my claim that SF is a lost cause, comparing it to a battle on the far front of our RKBA war...I say nonsense.


SF is a lost cause, because the people who live there are extremely anti-gun. You are battling against their will. No matter how wrong they are, you are facing off against the wishes and desires of a large majority of people. This is no easy task, and usually fails to work. At best, if you prevent them from banning guns, their sentiment will not change, and they will only harbor resentments and push again in the future when they achieve the necessary political power to get that ban. Until there is a MASSIVE cultural shift in the hearts and minds of the SF people, as well as a MASSIVE political shift -- don't bother.



Also, to say a SF ban is going to somehow affect me in Tampa Bay, Florida is pure nonsense - simply because WE will not vote for any garbage like that ever.


My advice to hard-core pro-RKBA folks there - MOVE. Please, come to a State like Florida where we are going in a positive, pro-RKBA direction. We can always use the votes to try and pass more "extreme" pro-RKBA laws that might be tight down the road. On some issues, this swing State could use a few good people to tip the scales. At least your vote will actually COUNT here, rather than be a symbol of dissent in SF. There's no glory in being a maryr in the war for RKBA rights - just look at the poor saps in England.

Ironbarr
October 24, 2005, 12:48 AM
how about the reverse? Suppose we had a few thousand folks who could move at a momenets notice to places like SF - folks who'd vote NO to everything anti-gun and YES to everything pro-gun.

Might get to be a habit and maybe other states can get "converted". Or reconverted (according how you see it).

A real (and valuable) task for the "motor voter" world, huh?

If you enjoyed reading about "NRA- SanFranGunBan... Vote NO!!!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!